Stars matter**
- Thread starter muddawgs
- Start date
How many stars did Bridgewater, Carr, McCarron, Mettenberger, Boyd, Murray, Miller, Thomas, Gilbert, and Renner have?**
No one claims that stars are the be all-end all. There are plenty of examples of underrated(or underevaluated) guys that improve into tremendous players(Bortles, Manziel, Smith, Fales, etc...)
4 year recruiting mean average(per Dave Bartoo @cfbmatrix):
1 - Alabama
2 - Texas
3 - USC
4 - LSU
5 - Florida St
6 - Auburn
7 - Ohio St
8 - Florida
9 - Georgia
10 - Oklahoma
11 - Tennessee
12 - Michigan
13 - Notre Dame
14 - Oregon
15 - Stanford
16 - South Carolina
17 - Miami
ALL 11 different national champions of the BCS era, making up a total of 16 titles, are in the current top 17 in 4-year recruiting average. Without the prolonged Miami dumpster fire, the other 10 champions all fall inside the top 11. That's right -- only UGA recruits on that elite level and doesn't have a title in the BCS era.
Now, if you want to discuss whether these teams recruit so well according to rankings are a cause -- or effect -- of their success is a whole different debate.
No one claims that stars are the be all-end all. There are plenty of examples of underrated(or underevaluated) guys that improve into tremendous players(Bortles, Manziel, Smith, Fales, etc...)
4 year recruiting mean average(per Dave Bartoo @cfbmatrix):
1 - Alabama
2 - Texas
3 - USC
4 - LSU
5 - Florida St
6 - Auburn
7 - Ohio St
8 - Florida
9 - Georgia
10 - Oklahoma
11 - Tennessee
12 - Michigan
13 - Notre Dame
14 - Oregon
15 - Stanford
16 - South Carolina
17 - Miami
ALL 11 different national champions of the BCS era, making up a total of 16 titles, are in the current top 17 in 4-year recruiting average. Without the prolonged Miami dumpster fire, the other 10 champions all fall inside the top 11. That's right -- only UGA recruits on that elite level and doesn't have a title in the BCS era.
Now, if you want to discuss whether these teams recruit so well according to rankings are a cause -- or effect -- of their success is a whole different debate.
Analysts just made a point to say that every player on the field at that time (I believe he meant on both sides) was a 3 or lower.
No chance. Baylor has a bunch of 4*s and Seastrunk is a 5*.
Storm Johnson wasn't far from being a 5* himself...
I agree with that mostly. To me outside of the Top 10-15 (depending on the year) in recruiting rankings the differences are not as big between the next 20-30 teams. A team that is getting the players that fit and buy in with good coaching but rank only in the 30's can be as successful as a team averaging 15-20 in rankings. But you have anomalies both ways. Tennessee, Georgia, USC, Michigan playing below their talent level the last few years (considerably below their talent in some cases). Then you have Alabama who won their first national title in 2008 with recruits the four previous years only averaging around 20-22 in the rankings. I think something like 31, 27, 16, 12 in the rankings (247 composite). But they fit what Saban wanted to do and bought in to the system and you still have to have good coaching to do it constantly. A one year team can emerge with average head coach with an elite QB (see Chizik and Newton). Although I contend and it seems to prove that Malzhan was the brains behind that emergence. Texas only championship came with Vince Young at the helm. Now Mack Brown is a good coach but I think the fact he has passed on some elite QB's the last 4-5 years finally caught up with him because they have recruited well enough to be in the hunt more than they have been recently and honestly should have been a Top 10 team every year the last five years.
The teams that stand out in that list to me are:
Texas
USC
Tennessee
Notre dame
Miami.
I just don't see how talent over a 4 year period can perform so mediocre unless one is willing to admit that their talent wasn't as good as advertised.
Texas
USC
Tennessee
Notre dame
Miami.
I just don't see how talent over a 4 year period can perform so mediocre unless one is willing to admit that their talent wasn't as good as advertised.
Succeeding
has a lot more to do with other things than what someone benches or how fast they are, for one.
has a lot more to do with other things than what someone benches or how fast they are, for one.
Johnson was a 3 star.
far from being a 5 star. And going back to 2009 Baylor has signed 10 4 stars so I'm going to say Baylor doesn't have a bunch of 4 stars.
far from being a 5 star. And going back to 2009 Baylor has signed 10 4 stars so I'm going to say Baylor doesn't have a bunch of 4 stars.
Yep. Stars do not matter on an individual basis but it is apparent by recent championships that while stars do not matter, the teams winning the championships are landing the alleged top prospects.
Yes but it is not always recognized in the rankings. I mentioned Alabama's rankings right before they won their first title. An average that wasn't even inside the 20's for the four years prior. Auburn's 4 classes before their title averaged 17th nationally. But to be consistently in the top 5 you are recruiting to a top 10 average. I think the original poster however was not just alluding to the national title game. If stars do matter as much overall then how did UCF beat Baylor. That was a big discrepancy in recruiting rankings. Same thing for Boise, Louisville, etc. Great coaching, player development and usually a great QB can put your team on a higher level than what the recruiting ranks state you should be. That's why recruiting matters but only to your evaluation and development.
Think you need to spend alot more time counting stars -- and less time prognosticating on recruiting.
Last edited:
Stars matter. Overall, they matter. On an individual player to player comp, they may not hold up, but hell yes they matter.
I would rather have a team of all 5* players than a team of all 2* players.
Some of those 5* players wouldnt develop. Some of those 2* players would develop.
But in the end, I wouldnt hesitate to lead the team with all 5* players. They will typically be more talented/polished/athletic.
I would rather have a team of all 5* players than a team of all 2* players.
Some of those 5* players wouldnt develop. Some of those 2* players would develop.
But in the end, I wouldnt hesitate to lead the team with all 5* players. They will typically be more talented/polished/athletic.
There's a handful of subscriptions sold amongst that group.
I don't keep up with recruiting outside of any recruits directly related to MSU, but if I were to guess, these schools likely missed a couple years and the recruiting services inflated rankings to keep the paying user base happy. People generally don't pay to get bad news.
I don't keep up with recruiting outside of any recruits directly related to MSU, but if I were to guess, these schools likely missed a couple years and the recruiting services inflated rankings to keep the paying user base happy. People generally don't pay to get bad news.
I feel like the ones that keep trying to make this argument every time a 2* kid breaks through the proverbial glass ceiling are the same ones that will claim that no one needs college because of people like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. These guys along with pro athletes like Patrick Willis are by far the exception to the norm.
Yes but you are not going to have a team of all five stars. So the coaches had better be good at evaluating 3 stars as well and developing them. And the simple fact is you have 110 other teams playing that are not national title contenders on a yearly basis. You can't keep thinking about whether stars matter with reference to only national championships. If that is the only criteria then why don't we just shut down the all of the other D1 programs. Even with the teams who are recruiting at top ten levels without good coaching all the talent will not get you a title. There is more to it than just the players. Coaching, players, fit to system, buy into the system, desire and motivation to get better as a player, etc.
no you look at 247 while I look at Scout...
3 star on scout
Think you need to spend alot more time counting stars -- and less time prognosticating on recruiting.
3 star on scout
Can the same be said with Boise St? If you have good coaches,then you can develop players no matter what their stars are. You take a ****** coach like Kiffen and give him all 4 and 5 stars and he doesn't develop them and they look like 2 and 3 stars.
My point went over your head or around you. Not sure which...
But you missed it.
I know I cant get a team full of 5* only. That isnt the point. The point is that IF I COULD, THEN I WOULD. That shows that *s do matter.
This is like arguing that McD AA's in basketball dont matter.
Give me a program that has only McD AA's on it year after year and lets see if we are a good or not.
Of course *s matter. Elite recruits put programs in a better position to succeed.
But you missed it.
I know I cant get a team full of 5* only. That isnt the point. The point is that IF I COULD, THEN I WOULD. That shows that *s do matter.
This is like arguing that McD AA's in basketball dont matter.
Give me a program that has only McD AA's on it year after year and lets see if we are a good or not.
Of course *s matter. Elite recruits put programs in a better position to succeed.
To add to the power of that list, all of the title game losers (loosers) are also accounted for, with the exception of Va Tech in 99 and Nebraska in 01. So 30 of the 32 berths in the championship game are on that list.
And Bortles wanted to come to Ole Miss. Even camped threre a couple of times and Houston Nutt told him he wasn't an SEC QB. Shocked? Me either. Thanks Houston.
Side note, Bortles' brother is currently on the Ole Miss baseball team.
Side note, Bortles' brother is currently on the Ole Miss baseball team.
Well -- obviously Scout nailed that one**
24/7 composite is the ONLY way to judge the ratings of kids because it draws a consensus. Anyone using anything else at this point is simply trying to skew into the favor of whatever position they are trying to take.
24/7 had him one point from 5* as the #2 RB in the country, Rivals had him 0.1 from 5* as the #7 RB in the country, ESPN had him one point from 5* as the #3 RB in the country. So -- you are trying to tell me that the kid is actually a 3* because Scout listed him as the #40RB?
No I understand what your saying and hypothetically you would be right. But football is different than basketball and in realty you face a problem when you see USC or Tennessee on that list who have all of this talent but they don't succeed. Four of the teams in the top ten average in recruiting on that list are not averaging top 10 finishes year in and year out. They have the talent supposedly but talent alone will not get it done. Is it an indication that they will be good, yes but there are other variables that come into play. And again the discussion was started not just about who will win national titles but taking in consideration all of the programs in D1. When you move from the top 10-15 in recruiting the teams are closer in talent than the rankings indicate or else why do we even play the games. Just rank the teams every February. Do you want the best players you can get every year? Of course and that's not the debate. The debate is do stars matter yes they do but the talent level separating the 20th rated recruiting class and 40th rated class are closer than the rankings indicate. Could anybody honestly say that UCF wasn't just as talented as Baylor last night? The recruiting rankings say one thing but the play on the field says something different. How was Saban able to win his first title in 2008 at Bama with a recruiting ranking averaging 20-22 for the four previous years? There are anomalies in either direction. On average you look at who is consistently in the Top 10 in recruiting to see where the most likely candidate for the national title will come from. But twice in the last 6 years it has been a team averaging outside the top 15 to win the title. While you have multiple teams inside the top 10 who can't finish ranked inside the Top 15. It will always be a combination of talent and coaching.
Thanks for making my point.
The funny thing is UCF didn't sign Johnson nor did Baylor sign seastrunk. I just think it's funny to see people get worked up over stars. We have sent 2, 3 and 4 stars to the NFL and unless something crazy happens, a 5 star. Thing is BCS teams aren't coming to Mississippi unless they are 4 or 5 stars or unless Mississippi kids start camping places beside Ole Miss and Msu. So people complaining about kids committing to Msu with just UAB and Southern Miss offers are dumb. Bottom line is other Bcs teams aren't coming to Mississippi and evaluating the Mississippi recruits like our coaches do, so when you see us take a commit from a 2* or low 3* early in the process, it's because our coaches think they they are good recruits that are way under rated.
We just aren't going into Florida and taking top kids. Now we keep going to bowls and sending players to the NFL, we will eventually be able to broaden our recruiting efforts.
The funny thing is UCF didn't sign Johnson nor did Baylor sign seastrunk. I just think it's funny to see people get worked up over stars. We have sent 2, 3 and 4 stars to the NFL and unless something crazy happens, a 5 star. Thing is BCS teams aren't coming to Mississippi unless they are 4 or 5 stars or unless Mississippi kids start camping places beside Ole Miss and Msu. So people complaining about kids committing to Msu with just UAB and Southern Miss offers are dumb. Bottom line is other Bcs teams aren't coming to Mississippi and evaluating the Mississippi recruits like our coaches do, so when you see us take a commit from a 2* or low 3* early in the process, it's because our coaches think they they are good recruits that are way under rated.
We just aren't going into Florida and taking top kids. Now we keep going to bowls and sending players to the NFL, we will eventually be able to broaden our recruiting efforts.
Gary Pinkel, at his recruiting receptions in St Louis after signing day, literally laughs at the star system. He's put a bunch of 2 star nobodies on all conference teams and into the NFL. The star system does identify athletically talented kids without question, but it can never project how a young man can fit into a system and how he will play versus a player with the same type of athletic talent on a D1 football field.
I don't
think anyone is denying the veracity of the rankings withing the top 15 or so. However, Where I think it's a crapshoot are in the teams lying somewhere in the next level. There are just way too many factors not taken into account. That's always been my contention with those that live and die by these so called "experts".
think anyone is denying the veracity of the rankings withing the top 15 or so. However, Where I think it's a crapshoot are in the teams lying somewhere in the next level. There are just way too many factors not taken into account. That's always been my contention with those that live and die by these so called "experts".
My contention
has always been how these guys are evaluated and who is and who isn't a top tier athlete. The people doing the rating have no idea.
has always been how these guys are evaluated and who is and who isn't a top tier athlete. The people doing the rating have no idea.